SH. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, AMRITSAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TARN TARAN

ITA 649/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3623 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-08-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM DE B LD
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA LD
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.649(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 08-09 SH. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, VPO CHANANKE, TEHSIL BABA BAKALA, AMRITSAR-143001 PAN:ANJPG 6606J VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, TARN TARAN (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. P.N. ARORA (LD. ADV.) RESPONDENT BY: SMT. GAUTAM DEB (LD. DR) DATE OF HEARING: 09.08.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16 .08.2018 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE/AP PELLANT, ON FEELING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.07.201 7, PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-1, AMRITSAR, U/S. 250(6) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT), WHEREBY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2 . THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E. 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THERE BY LEVYING PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF L EARNED CIT(A) THEREBY CONFIRMING THE SAME ARE BOTH AGAINST THE FACTS OF T HE CASE AND ARE UNTENABLE IN LAW. 2. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND MERELY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND WITHOUT ANY RHYME & REASON, THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE PENALTY. AS SUCH, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELL ED. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT T HIS CASE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE MISCHIEF OF SECTION 271(1)(B) AND AS SUC H THE PENALTY ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. ITA NO.649/ASR/2017 (A.Y.2008-09) SH. GURVI NDER SINGH GILL, AMRITSAR V. ITO 2 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT TH ERE WAS NO INCOME WORTH THE NAME AND THE WHOLE ADDITION WAS DELETED B Y HE AO. AS SUCH THERE WAS NO DEFAULT AND AS SUCH THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(B) IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 5. THAT THERE WAS NO DEFAULT AS ALLEGED U/S 271(1 )(B) AND AS SUCH THE PENALTY ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. SIMILARLY, THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN C ONFIRMING THE SAME. ALTERNATIVELY THE PENALTY LEVIED IS VERY HIGH & EXC ESSIVE. 3. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AT AMRITSAR, IN ITA NO.608(ASR)/2016 IN THE CASE OF SUKHDEV SINGH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER , VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31.07.2017 DEALT WITH THE SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL SITUA TION AND DELETED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE CONCLUDING PART OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREIN B ELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT FIRST NOTIC E U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 17.08.2010. THIS NOTICE REMAINED UNCOMPLI ED WITH. THEN AGAIN, TWO NOTICES WERE ISSUES AND WHICH ALSO REMAI NED UNCOMPLIED WITH, HOWEVER, ON 27.09.2010, THE ASSESS EE APPEARED AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR 0 4.10.2010. THEN AGAIN ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 ON 15.12.2010. SIM ULTANEOUSLY STARTED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(L)(B). IN THE M EANTIME ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND GOT SUB STANTIAL RELIEF AND THE REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST LD. CIT(A)S ORDER WAS ALSO DISMISSED. AFTER THE RECEIPT OF TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE PENALTY CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN STARTED AND WAS FIXED FOR HE ARING ON 23.07.2015, AND PENALTY WAS IMPOSED ON 18.08.2015. IN THE RENEWED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ALSO THE ASSESSEE DID N OT GET SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND THE PENALTY. THE P ERIOD BETWEEN ISSUE OF FIRST NOTICE ON 17.08.2010 AND COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT ON 15.12.2010 IS ALSO NOT A REASONABLE PERIOD AND A SSESSEE CANNOT BE FASTENED WITH THE LIABILITY FOR NOT APPEA RING SPECIFICALLY, IN VIEW OF THE FACT, THAT ASSESSEE IS AN UNEDUCATED PERSON AS IS APPARENT FROM HIS SIGNATURES AND ALSO IN VIEW OF TH E FACT THAT ASSESSEE LIVES IN A VILLAGE NEAR AMRITSAR. WE FURTH ER FIND THE ASSESSEE HAD GOT SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF FROM THE LD. CI T(A) AND WHICH WAS UPHELD BY HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ALSO. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESS EE IS ALLOWED . ITA NO.649/ASR/2017 (A.Y.2008-09) SH. GURVI NDER SINGH GILL, AMRITSAR V. ITO 3 WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AT AMRITSAR IN THE CASE OF SUKHDEV SINGH VS. ITO (SUPRA), AS THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE DECIDE D BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH AS MENTIONED ABOVE, THEREFORE, THE CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, HEN CE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DICTUM OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, WE ARE INCLINE D TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND CONSEQUENTLY THE PE NALTY STANDS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.08.2018. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER DATED: 16.08.2018 /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) SH. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, VPO CHANANKE, TEHSIL BABA BAKALA, AMRITSAR (2) THE ITO, WARD-1, TARN TARAN (3) THE CIT(A)-1, AMRITSAR (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER